November 08, 2010

Why Are Law Firms Spamming Our Comments? Is It Ethical?

Bloggers always see lots of spam in the comments - particularly in the older posts. These days, we see a ton of comments signed by (presumably faux) Air Jordan, Uggs, and Viagra sellers. The signature is attached to a link to a commercial site apparently seeking to drive up traffic via the Google algorithm. When I feel the energy, I clean a ton of them out....but too often they live forever in our archives.

Recently I noticed some spam-like comments originating from law firms. Perhaps too quickly, I erased some of them. But here are two recent comments attached to Laura's February 8, 2008 post "Lawyers as Presidential Candidates". New York Divorce Lawyer - aka The Rosenblum Law Firm - writes:

Most politicians write books, and it makes sense because narcissists tend to like to write books about themselves, but they usually pay someone to do it and then send it as theirs. So they use the proceeds to go into status and money to win elections, a large war chest is important to win.

Thanks for the post! I had no idea there were so many lawyers as past presidents - I knew about Lincoln and Taft, but the rest I was clueless on.

Now, I recognize that this might not be spam. Perhaps someone from Tobler was researching this question about lawyer presidents, came upon a two and half year old post, was stunned to realize that Richard Nixon (to say nothing of Bill Clinton) was a lawyer, and felt compelled to comment. Maybe Mr. Rosenblum thought this was the perfect setting to pontificate about the use of books as a campaign fund-raising tool. But call me a skeptic. I think that these folks are spamming to drive up their Google profile.

Is it ethical for lawyers to do this? Is the strategic production of spam comments a form of advertising? If so, is it in compliance with advertising regulations? Are there other restrictions that might make such spurious comments improper? Does it make the profession look bad?

We are talking about advertising in class tomorrow so these issues are on my mind. I don't think this spamming is forbidden by the rules. It's not solicitation, because it's not "in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact" under Rule 7.3. If it's advertising -- which it may be -- it's OK under 7.1 because it's not "false or misleading." I can't think of any other rules that this conduct violates.

As for whether it gives the profession a bad name, yes, it probably does, but my own view is that we (the profession, the bar, the courts) should spend more time worrying about incompetent lawyers than tacky advertising. I do enjoy showing my students those tacky ads in class, though! It's always one of the best classes of the semester.

p.s. As a long-time lurker, let me take this opportunity to tell you that I really enjoy the blog, Dan.

I tend to publish all of these types of comments. Sure, they might be a little spammy but having commenters is good and while not particularly insightful, these somewhat hallow comments still add something to the conversation.

Of course, if you wanted to completely alleviate the concern, you could add a feature that cuts out the person's website completely. Why do commenters need to add their URL link? There is no real reason for it. I always put mine in as a reflex because someone has asked. But I don't think it meaningfully drives up web traffic anyway.

Just for the sake of argument, let me offer a weak argument that some spam is misleading. When the spam comment is generic, off-point, and solely for the purpose of jacking up search engine results, is the comment at least insincere and therefor "misleading"?

I agree: that's probably the best argument you can make against these spam comments. But I can't even see the anti-advertising zealots in places like Florida and Louisiana going after them on these grounds, can you?

Unbelievable thread. Yes, this question of spam is a curious new development which merits chin stroking and further study in the comments section of your blog. The "weakest" argument against spam is that it is, perhaps, somewhat slightly misleading. Perhaps a position argument is in order: "Comment Spam and Search Engine Marketing: Adding Something to the Conversation."

Good job dispelling that myth of lawprofs being out of touch with reality.